- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Kathy Tebow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is not about its subject at all, it is a coatrack to talk about her husband getting mauled by a bear just before their wedding. Being Miss Alaska is not enough on its own to justify notability. Creig Sharp bear mauling may or may not be a worthwhile article, but if it is it needs to be an article under its proper name, and not coatrack onto an article on a non-notable beauty pageant winner. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. The rest (majority) of the article is about her husband. MB 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Also agree with nom. The content is a coatrack about her future husband and a bear mauling. This leaves Miss Alaska (not an event of sufficient importance), which falls under WP:BIO1E, so fails WP:GNG --- Otr500 ( talk) 04:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per all the above. As an aside, I've read Hererro's book that included the story mentioned here, it's quite terrifying.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 21:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Question Do you think the coverage in the book would justify an article on the bear mauling itself, or do you think it does not pass the test for Wikipedia articles? I wish I understood how to ping people for further response. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reply to Jack: I tried to take a look at the book but the link returned "404. That’s an error" as did the unnamed link. I would think, unless there is more coverage than I could find, that this would still only be a one time deal. Otr500 ( talk) 00:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Me name is John, it is not Jack. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- OMG! A friend called as I was typing so I just typed his name in. I guess we know what his name is? Sorry about that. Otr500 ( talk) 03:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- 90% of the article's prose is about Creig Sharp and his encounter with the bear. Notability is not inherited, and anyway, this is tabloid trivia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. She was not even almost mauled by a grizzly. Bearian ( talk) 18:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – I don't know what's worse, the barely-encyclopedic efforts of those trying to build coverage on the topic of beauty pageants in an incestuous fanboy style or the persistent efforts of the nominator and other regulars to tear it down. Might deserve a mention in
WP:LAME, if you ask me. This article was started by a long-gone SPA whose username also gives a strong whiff of COI. Only the usual succession of turd-polishing edits followed for years (once again, so much for "collaboration"). After seven-and-a-half years as a proper biography, it was gutted earlier this year under the guise of BLP and turned into a coatrack, apparently without regard for whether or not the existing source was a dead link (we've at least established that it passes WP:V regardless of that). As the article history is easily accessible, it's rather disingenuous and perhaps somewhat suspicious to ignore all that and judge the article solely on its current form. My problem with the article is that we're using its existence to push the POV that she is "notable" within the context of KIMO (now
KYUR), as seen
here. Her predecessor as Miss Alaska, Cindy Suryan, and co-anchor John Vallentine played a substantial role in the station's local news ratings success during their respective nearly-decade-long tenures (and the station has never been a ratings contender since their departures), whereas the same can't be said in this case. This is the same POV as trying to claim that Sarah Palin's series of cups of coffee in television news are somehow notable to the context of those stations, while ignoring other folks who were at those stations for decades. If you need an example of Wikipedia as a monument to self-indulgence at the expense of being an information resource, that's it.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 21:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The above statements are not accurate. The paragraph long discussion of Tebow and her coutship as well as the bear mauling of her later husband existed from the very first creation of this article. They seem to have recieved more attention with later revisions, but they existed when the article was first created. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Really? Are you trying to play a game of making others waste their time explaning themselves over and over and then hiding behind AGF or anything else you can think of? That's precisely the sort of thing I've seen too much of as of late, a part of why I halved my watchlist the other day and have otherwise drastically cut back my contributions to this website. At the present time, I have neither a full-time connection to the net nor the time in my life to wade through the sight of people who have a lot of time for Wikipedia piddling around and making no real progress towards building an encyclopedia. If you really did misunderstand me, my point is that most of the !votes I'm seeing appear to be based solely on the state of the article for the past seven months as a coatrack, yet another example of making the encyclopedia out to be a reflection of particular sources rather than an information resource. Anyone participating in this discussion can see for themselves, through the appropriate link at the top of the page, that the article did resemble a proper biography for over seven years. Of course, this is hardly the only example of a very active editor using BLP as a gambit to turn an article from a proper biography to a biography in name only. As I said in another recent AFD, are others interpreting the term "biography" differently than I am? If you're still going to play blind and dumb and ignore my point, here's
the article as created in October 2008,
the contributions of the article's creator and
the edit which gutted it earlier this year. When I refer to "disingenuous" in my previous comments, why don't others just admit that "I don't like it" governs their belief about covering the topic of beauty pageants? Whether you like it or not, it's far more notable than a lot of the bottom-feeding, media-worshipping crap I see on here which keeps getting defended to the death over and over. There's also the matter of common sense, as we keep proving what a misnomer the term is by virtue of how rare the application of common sense has become.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- The article's creator very likely was the subject or a close relative. That these beauty pageant articles so often involve Conflict of Interest is another sign that the subjects are non-notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Really? Are you trying to play a game of making others waste their time explaning themselves over and over and then hiding behind AGF or anything else you can think of? That's precisely the sort of thing I've seen too much of as of late, a part of why I halved my watchlist the other day and have otherwise drastically cut back my contributions to this website. At the present time, I have neither a full-time connection to the net nor the time in my life to wade through the sight of people who have a lot of time for Wikipedia piddling around and making no real progress towards building an encyclopedia. If you really did misunderstand me, my point is that most of the !votes I'm seeing appear to be based solely on the state of the article for the past seven months as a coatrack, yet another example of making the encyclopedia out to be a reflection of particular sources rather than an information resource. Anyone participating in this discussion can see for themselves, through the appropriate link at the top of the page, that the article did resemble a proper biography for over seven years. Of course, this is hardly the only example of a very active editor using BLP as a gambit to turn an article from a proper biography to a biography in name only. As I said in another recent AFD, are others interpreting the term "biography" differently than I am? If you're still going to play blind and dumb and ignore my point, here's
the article as created in October 2008,
the contributions of the article's creator and
the edit which gutted it earlier this year. When I refer to "disingenuous" in my previous comments, why don't others just admit that "I don't like it" governs their belief about covering the topic of beauty pageants? Whether you like it or not, it's far more notable than a lot of the bottom-feeding, media-worshipping crap I see on here which keeps getting defended to the death over and over. There's also the matter of common sense, as we keep proving what a misnomer the term is by virtue of how rare the application of common sense has become.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The article as created had two sources, both Miss Alaska, thus primary sources. That in and of itself shows it ought not to have lasted this long. As created the article is if anything even worse, and maybe a clearer sign that the creator is the subject. Wikipedia is not a platform to create autobiogrpahies. Being Miss Alaska itself is not a claim to notability. Thus we need something more. Nothing in the last paragraph as the article was originally created comes close to notability. Wikipedia follows people being noted in reliable sources. Tebow does not pass that test at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete 1 beauty pageant + 1 bear ≠ notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 03:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Kathy Tebow ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is not about its subject at all, it is a coatrack to talk about her husband getting mauled by a bear just before their wedding. Being Miss Alaska is not enough on its own to justify notability. Creig Sharp bear mauling may or may not be a worthwhile article, but if it is it needs to be an article under its proper name, and not coatrack onto an article on a non-notable beauty pageant winner. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. The rest (majority) of the article is about her husband. MB 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Also agree with nom. The content is a coatrack about her future husband and a bear mauling. This leaves Miss Alaska (not an event of sufficient importance), which falls under WP:BIO1E, so fails WP:GNG --- Otr500 ( talk) 04:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per all the above. As an aside, I've read Hererro's book that included the story mentioned here, it's quite terrifying.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 21:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Question Do you think the coverage in the book would justify an article on the bear mauling itself, or do you think it does not pass the test for Wikipedia articles? I wish I understood how to ping people for further response. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reply to Jack: I tried to take a look at the book but the link returned "404. That’s an error" as did the unnamed link. I would think, unless there is more coverage than I could find, that this would still only be a one time deal. Otr500 ( talk) 00:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Me name is John, it is not Jack. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- OMG! A friend called as I was typing so I just typed his name in. I guess we know what his name is? Sorry about that. Otr500 ( talk) 03:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- 90% of the article's prose is about Creig Sharp and his encounter with the bear. Notability is not inherited, and anyway, this is tabloid trivia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. She was not even almost mauled by a grizzly. Bearian ( talk) 18:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – I don't know what's worse, the barely-encyclopedic efforts of those trying to build coverage on the topic of beauty pageants in an incestuous fanboy style or the persistent efforts of the nominator and other regulars to tear it down. Might deserve a mention in
WP:LAME, if you ask me. This article was started by a long-gone SPA whose username also gives a strong whiff of COI. Only the usual succession of turd-polishing edits followed for years (once again, so much for "collaboration"). After seven-and-a-half years as a proper biography, it was gutted earlier this year under the guise of BLP and turned into a coatrack, apparently without regard for whether or not the existing source was a dead link (we've at least established that it passes WP:V regardless of that). As the article history is easily accessible, it's rather disingenuous and perhaps somewhat suspicious to ignore all that and judge the article solely on its current form. My problem with the article is that we're using its existence to push the POV that she is "notable" within the context of KIMO (now
KYUR), as seen
here. Her predecessor as Miss Alaska, Cindy Suryan, and co-anchor John Vallentine played a substantial role in the station's local news ratings success during their respective nearly-decade-long tenures (and the station has never been a ratings contender since their departures), whereas the same can't be said in this case. This is the same POV as trying to claim that Sarah Palin's series of cups of coffee in television news are somehow notable to the context of those stations, while ignoring other folks who were at those stations for decades. If you need an example of Wikipedia as a monument to self-indulgence at the expense of being an information resource, that's it.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 21:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The above statements are not accurate. The paragraph long discussion of Tebow and her coutship as well as the bear mauling of her later husband existed from the very first creation of this article. They seem to have recieved more attention with later revisions, but they existed when the article was first created. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Really? Are you trying to play a game of making others waste their time explaning themselves over and over and then hiding behind AGF or anything else you can think of? That's precisely the sort of thing I've seen too much of as of late, a part of why I halved my watchlist the other day and have otherwise drastically cut back my contributions to this website. At the present time, I have neither a full-time connection to the net nor the time in my life to wade through the sight of people who have a lot of time for Wikipedia piddling around and making no real progress towards building an encyclopedia. If you really did misunderstand me, my point is that most of the !votes I'm seeing appear to be based solely on the state of the article for the past seven months as a coatrack, yet another example of making the encyclopedia out to be a reflection of particular sources rather than an information resource. Anyone participating in this discussion can see for themselves, through the appropriate link at the top of the page, that the article did resemble a proper biography for over seven years. Of course, this is hardly the only example of a very active editor using BLP as a gambit to turn an article from a proper biography to a biography in name only. As I said in another recent AFD, are others interpreting the term "biography" differently than I am? If you're still going to play blind and dumb and ignore my point, here's
the article as created in October 2008,
the contributions of the article's creator and
the edit which gutted it earlier this year. When I refer to "disingenuous" in my previous comments, why don't others just admit that "I don't like it" governs their belief about covering the topic of beauty pageants? Whether you like it or not, it's far more notable than a lot of the bottom-feeding, media-worshipping crap I see on here which keeps getting defended to the death over and over. There's also the matter of common sense, as we keep proving what a misnomer the term is by virtue of how rare the application of common sense has become.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- The article's creator very likely was the subject or a close relative. That these beauty pageant articles so often involve Conflict of Interest is another sign that the subjects are non-notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Really? Are you trying to play a game of making others waste their time explaning themselves over and over and then hiding behind AGF or anything else you can think of? That's precisely the sort of thing I've seen too much of as of late, a part of why I halved my watchlist the other day and have otherwise drastically cut back my contributions to this website. At the present time, I have neither a full-time connection to the net nor the time in my life to wade through the sight of people who have a lot of time for Wikipedia piddling around and making no real progress towards building an encyclopedia. If you really did misunderstand me, my point is that most of the !votes I'm seeing appear to be based solely on the state of the article for the past seven months as a coatrack, yet another example of making the encyclopedia out to be a reflection of particular sources rather than an information resource. Anyone participating in this discussion can see for themselves, through the appropriate link at the top of the page, that the article did resemble a proper biography for over seven years. Of course, this is hardly the only example of a very active editor using BLP as a gambit to turn an article from a proper biography to a biography in name only. As I said in another recent AFD, are others interpreting the term "biography" differently than I am? If you're still going to play blind and dumb and ignore my point, here's
the article as created in October 2008,
the contributions of the article's creator and
the edit which gutted it earlier this year. When I refer to "disingenuous" in my previous comments, why don't others just admit that "I don't like it" governs their belief about covering the topic of beauty pageants? Whether you like it or not, it's far more notable than a lot of the bottom-feeding, media-worshipping crap I see on here which keeps getting defended to the death over and over. There's also the matter of common sense, as we keep proving what a misnomer the term is by virtue of how rare the application of common sense has become.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The article as created had two sources, both Miss Alaska, thus primary sources. That in and of itself shows it ought not to have lasted this long. As created the article is if anything even worse, and maybe a clearer sign that the creator is the subject. Wikipedia is not a platform to create autobiogrpahies. Being Miss Alaska itself is not a claim to notability. Thus we need something more. Nothing in the last paragraph as the article was originally created comes close to notability. Wikipedia follows people being noted in reliable sources. Tebow does not pass that test at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete 1 beauty pageant + 1 bear ≠ notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 03:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.